Researchers from the Seoul National University have claimed they have been able to clone both female and male dogs

A former co-worker of now disgraced South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk yesterday claimed that he has successfully cloned a female dog. According to Lee Byeong-chun, a veterinary professor at Seoul National University, an Afghan hound named Bona was born on June 18. Two more of the same breed were born later, according to Lee. DNA tests have reportedly shown that all three of the female dogs are clones of one another. Scientists used 167 reconstructed embryos which were implanted into 12 surrogate mothers to produce the three dogs.

Snuppy, the first male cloned dog, was also created by Seoul National University researchers in 2005.

Scientists have stated that dogs are one of the more difficult animals to clone due to their complex reproductive cycles. Researchers now hope that the cloned female and cloned male dogs of the same breed will be able to reproduce. Lee said: "This is being done to advance medical research and it is not yet intended for people to clone their pets."

The findings have been published in the Theriogenology veterinary journal.

Lee served a three-month suspension from the Seoul National University for his role in a stem cell controversy that surrounded Woo-suk's demise as a scientist earlier this year. Lee is currently on trial on charges of misappropriating research funds during the scandal.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This site is so aggravating lately...have to click post like 4 times before it "takes" an what not.....

ANYWAY...

I only support cloning for one thing and one thing only -- cloning vital organs. If we could perfect making perfectly healthy, strong organs for transplant operations that would be very cool IMHO.

However to go as far as cloning actual human beings...that is freaky on so many levels I can't even explain....

Not to mention it conflicts with my personal moral/ethical compass to an uncomfortable degree.

And the reason (to address a poster's comment) people don't just "charge in" and easily accept something like Stem Cell research is there is a huge debate on the morals, ethics and for some -- religious beliefs on whether it is "right" or not....

Why? Nature clones human beings often enough. Admittedly, cloning live, conscious people for use as slaves, lab rats, or worse is an ethical nightmare. However, if a cloned human is given the same consideration as one born naturally, where's the difficulty?

Probably because I just think if you look at the issue simply there is no issue, however things are never simple--things are never as neat and nice as drawn out on paper.

The cop out answer would be well that's exactly why -- because nature is the NATURAL way that our species intended life to be created (and its more accurate to say its NOT cloning when talking about the natural birth process....(from conception to delivery I mean) ).

However for me I think of the social/relationship ramifications it would have in the long term for our species...my god look at how easily desensitized our culture has already become with say....drugs and killing. People get shot today, and even a 15 year kid is like "yeah that sucks...so did you get a PS3?".....imagine just cloning people, and remember full bore cloning means there is no "parents". Its not like invetro fertilization (however you spell it)...there is no sperm and egg donation from designated parents, in the normal sense we think of as "parents"....there is no emotional attachment required with the "child" that is clone.

To me that is just wrong...and if anyone requires more explaination as to why that is wrong...that in and of itself is also wrong.

Its like asking why shooting someone in the face is wrong regardless if they deserved it or not...because it just IS.

Then there is the whole dark thought of making a clone army of slaves and servants like some twisted sci-fi movie. Or how about cloning yourself sex slaves?

> ""full bore cloning means there is no "parents"...there is no emotional attachment required with the "child" that is clone."...

Cloning means there is one parent, not two. And I don't see why that parent would have any less of an emotional attachment to the child than anyone in a single-parent home today.

Part of the problem is the Hollywood image of cloning as creating a full-grown human, right from some lexan tank. In reality, it merely creates a foetus, which isn't distinguishable from one created through the normal process of fertilization. A foetus which becomes a child, and must grow up just like any other baby.

Even so...it is not natural, it goes against the grain of my moral and ethical convictions ...convictions founded in an Christian upbringing and then strengthened on my own through my life experiences that helped me form my own deep seated views of what is in fact, "wrong" or/and "right".

Despite your giving evidence that proves I don't have a rational foundation for my views, I'm going to stand by them.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't make them sound like facts.

If a person makes the effort to go get cloned so that they can have a child, more than likely they're going to be just as emotionally attached as if they'd had a natural conception. Surrogate mothers are used all the time, and the parents don't love the kid any less. Men just get laid, they don't have to carry the kid around for 9 months, but they're generally still emotionally attached.

Granted there ARE situations where the attachment issue would come up, like using cloning to make slaves or to harvest black market organs (or legal ones if you know the story) or something like that, but nearly everything we do has possible downsides or ways it could be misused. That's why we have laws and punishments and deterrents so that those situations can be controlled and occur less often. People are going to do things that violate your moral Christian code, whether it's cloning babies especially for reasons other than having a child, or rape and murder, robbery, blaspheming, homosexuality, liberalism, worshipping other gods, body piercing, whatever.

But you're also just plain against it because it's not natural (you have any idea how much of your life isn't natural?) and goes against what you and your pastors think the Bible says you should feel about it. There's just no way to argue with that. But I'd have more respect if somebody just said they didn't like cloning because it gave them the heebie-jeebies, than invoking religious values with zero support behind it.

You going to raise the kid to adulthood so that you can have sex with him when you're 50? Unless you mean somebody illicitly running a cloning lab and you could get a clone made that wouldn't be registered, no birth certificate or anything, in which case the wait could be shorter than is socially acceptable. Those will exist if cloning a human does ever become feasible, whether there are legal options for getting cloned or not.

quote:By rushfan2006 on 12/19/2006 11:10:06 AM
This site is so aggravating lately...have to click post like 4 times before it "takes" an what not.....

That happened to me to.
I found out why it happens 90% of the times. All you have to do to avoid it is let the preview window finish loading before you click post. :)
I guess they call it preview because you have to read it... =)
You better rate me up to heaven on this one cause I started saving a lot of reloads after figuring this out ;)

Why is cloning a female dog such a revelutionary thing compared to male? Do they all sense that they'll come out wearing the same thing and just stay inside sulking? :-D (Yes I know that the clones will look very different due to the way fur develops.)

And I thought quite a lot of mammals, even most of them, had "complex" cycles.